ArticleESMO open2026
Molecular effects of ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in breast cancer: a paired-biopsy analysis.
Article in ESMO open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFertility preservation is increasingly offered to young women diagnosed with breast cancer. Although available clinical evidence suggests that controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) does not compromise oncological outcomes, its direct biological effect on tumor tissue remains poorly defined. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this single-center, longitudinal, prospective paired-biopsy study, 21 premenopausal women (age <40 years) with stage II-III breast cancer underwent paired diagnostic and post-COS tumor biopsies at the Breast Cancer Unit, Clínic BCCC (October 2020-September 2024). COS was carried out with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone plus concurrent letrozole (5 mg/day) using a random-start protocol. After oocyte retrieval, a second core tumor biopsy was obtained within 24 to 48 hours. Immunohistochemistry [estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), Ki-67, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2,) tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs)] and PAM50 gene-expression profiling were carried out. Paired analyses evaluated changes in protein markers, gene-by-gene expression, intrinsic subtype, and risk of recurrence (ROR) score, applying a false discovery rate (FDR) <5% for significance.
resultsNo significant differences were detected in ER (P = 0.962), PR (P = 0.562), Ki-67 (P = 0.768), or TILs (P = 0.172) after COS. Post-stimulation Ki-67 was not associated with stimulation duration (r = 0.047; P = 0.839), total gonadotropin dose (r = 0.026; P = 0.911), or peak estradiol levels (r = 0.121; P = 0.610). Transcriptomic analysis identified downregulation of 11/72 genes (15.3%), including proliferation-associated genes CDC6, CENPF, EXO1, and RRM2, although none met significance thresholds after FDR correction. PAM50 intrinsic subtype remained stable (luminal A 23.8%, luminal B 28.6%, HER2-enriched 19.0%, basal-like 23.8%), with only two borderline shifts between luminal A and luminal B. Five mild ROR variations were observed (four decreases and one increase), all small in magnitude on the continuous scale.
conclusionsCOS with concurrent letrozole was not associated with short-term molecular changes in breast tumor tissue. These findings provide biological reassurance regarding the safety of COS for fertility preservation in young women with breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.